figma-mcp-go

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the type constraints (COLOR vs FLOAT) and the ongoing 'driven by' relationship. Minor gap in not explaining the idempotentHint: false behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the binding concept, the second provides the field-type mapping. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 3-parameter input with full schema coverage and available annotations, the description adequately explains the binding mechanism and type constraints. No output schema exists to describe. Slight deduction for not clarifying overwrite behavior implied by idempotentHint: false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds essential semantic information: it clarifies that fillColor accepts COLOR variables while all other fields accept FLOAT variables. This type system knowledge is critical and absent from the schema's mere enumeration of valid strings.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the core action ('Bind a local variable to a node property') and the mechanism ('property is driven by the variable's value'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like create_variable or set_variable_value.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides specific guidance on field selection based on variable type (COLOR for fillColor, FLOAT for others), which is crucial for correct usage. However, it lacks explicit contrast with alternatives like set_variable_value (static value assignment vs. dynamic binding).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.